Chullin 133b (קלג:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

Here,

when we learned in the beraita that “he need not mark it,”

with what are we dealing? With the case where

the gentile

sits at the butcher’s counter

[in the shop] while the Jewish butcher sells the meat there, making it evident that they are partners. This is unlike the Mishna, which deals with a case in which he does not sit in the shop.

The Gemara challenges: If so,

analogously, with regard to a priest,

as we learned in the first clause of the beraita,

“one who enters into partnership with a priest must mark it,” this ruling, too, must be referring to a case

where

the priest

sits at the butcher’s counter,

as we explained in the latter clause with regard to a gentile. If so,

why must he mark it?

The Gemara answers: The fact that the priest sits in the shop is not proof that the butcher entered into a partnership with him,

as they say,

the observers: This priest

is buying meat

[he wants to purchase meat].

The Gemara challenges: If so,

a gentile as well,

why does he not have to mark it? After all, even in this case

they say

the observers that the gentile

is buying meat,

and is not entering into a partnership with the Jew.

Rather, with what are we dealing here? With the case where the gentile sits on the money box

[the place where the butcher puts the money he receives from the purchasers], and in this manner it is evident that he is a partner and not merely a purchaser.

The Gemara challenges: If so,

analogously, with regard to a priest,

we are also dealing with a case

where he sits on the money box,

and if so,

why must he mark it?

The Gemara answers:

They say,

the observers, that he is in fact not a partner, but

the butcher entrusted

the priest with guarding the money in his box so that it would not be stolen from him.

The Gemara challenges: If so,

a gentile as well

should be subject to the concern that

they say

the observers

he entrusted

the butcher with guarding his money, and is in fact not a partner.

The Gemara answers: There is no concern that the observers will think so, because

there is no trust in a gentile;

a Jew is not accustomed to entrust a gentile with guarding his money.

And

alternatively, if you wish, say:

In fact, one must say as in the explanation given above, that the priest and the gentile are sitting in the shop. Nevertheless, there is a distinction, because

an ordinary gentile is outspoken.

If he is a partner, he is accustomed to shout: “Do not sell it for this price; sell it for that price!” Everyone therefore knows that he is the butcher’s partner. But a priest is reserved and does not shout; rather, he relies on the butcher, and there is no proof that he is a partner.

The Master said: And the disqualified consecrated animals need not be marked.

Apparently, the matter is evident

when they are sold, that they are consecrated and not non-sacred; therefore, there is no need to mark them, since everyone knows that they are consecrated and exempt from the gifts.

The Gemara challenges:

But we learned in a Mishna: Disqualified consecrated animals are sold in a butcher’s market

[in the marketplace],

and slaughtered in a butcher’s market and weighed by the litra,

which indicates that they are sold like all non-sacred animals. If so, the matter is not “evident.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava explained before Rav Pappa

the statement that we learned, that there is no need to mark them, as referring

to those that are sold inside the house.

That is, to firstborn animals and tithes, whose monetary value is not consecrated but is given to their owners. Since this is so, the Sages did not permit one to treat them disrespectfully and sell them in the marketplace, like all non-sacred animals, for his own benefit. Rather, he sells them specifically inside the house, even though this causes him a loss, because buyers do not compete as much in a house as they do in the marketplace. If so, it is evident that they are consecrated from the fact that he sells them in his house, and therefore there is no need to mark them. [This is unlike other disqualified consecrated animals, whose redemption money becomes consecrated in their place. If one were not permitted to sell them in the marketplace, he would initially redeem them only cheaply, causing a loss to the consecrated property. Therefore, since the matter is not evident—the animals are sold in the marketplace like all non-sacred animals—he must mark them.]

Rav Huna said:

If a person was

a partner in the head

of an animal, but not in its other parts,

the owners are exempt

from

the

gift of

the jaw

alone, but they are liable for the other gifts.

If he was

a partner in the foreleg

of the animal,

the owners are exempt

from

the shoulder

alone. If he was

a partner in the innards,

he is exempt from the maw 4.

And Hiyya bar Rav said: Even if

another person is

a partner

only

in one of them

[the gifts],

the owners are exempt

from

all of them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

One person said to another:

The head

of the animal is

mine, and the entire

—the rest of the entire animal—

is yours! And even if

he said:

One one-hundredth of the head

is mine, -

he is exempt.

And similarly, if he said:

The foreleg is mine, and the entire animal is yours,

and

even one one-hundredth of the foreleg

is mine—

he is exempt.

And similarly, if he said:

The innards are mine and the entire animal is yours,

and

even

only

one one-hundredth

of them is mine—

he is exempt.

Is that not

the meaning of the statement that he is exempt:

he is exempt from the cheek but liable for all the others,

for all the other gifts? And likewise, when he said that the foreleg is mine,

he is exempt from the shoulder but liable for all the others;

and likewise, when he said that the innards are mine,

he is exempt from the maw but liable for all the others?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

in all these cases

he is exempt from all of them!

The Gemara challenges: If so, why did we learn simply “he is exempt”?

Let it teach

explicitly,

“he is exempt from all of them”?

Furthermore,

indeed

it was taught

explicitly:

The head is mine and the entire animal is yours,

and

even one one-hundredth of the head

is mine—

he is exempt from the cheek but liable for all the others?

And the Gemara concludes:

A refutation of Hiyya bar Rav,

who said, “he is exempt from all of them”—

a refutation! Rav Hisda said: This teaching

below

misled

[him]

Hiyya bar Rav,

and caused him to conclude that one is exempt from all the gifts.

As it was taught: There are twenty-four gifts of the priesthood, and all of them were given to Aaron and his sons by means of a general statement followed by a specific statement.

As it is stated: “All the sacred offerings of the children of Israel I have given you.” -

This is the general statement. Then it says: “And this shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire, and so on,” and the verse specifies each of the gifts; this is the specific statement.

And

it is written in this passage:

“A covenant of salt

forever,” meaning: Just as the covenant made with salt—that it should not rot—is everlasting, so too this covenant shall not cease.

And they expounded:

Whoever fulfills them

—who gives the gifts—

is as though he has fulfilled the general statement and the specific statement, namely, the generalities and specifications in the Torah,

5, and

as though he had offered all the offerings, concerning which

“a covenant of salt” is stated.

And whoever transgresses them,

who does not give them,

is as though he transgresses the general statement and the specific statement

in the Torah,

and

as though he had not offered the offerings, concerning which

“a covenant of salt” is stated.

And these are

the twenty-four gifts:

Ten

of them were given to be eaten

in the Temple

within the Temple courtyard;

four

of them are eaten

in Jerusalem, and ten

of them are eaten

within the Land of Israel outside Jerusalem.

And these are

the ten

that are

in the Temple: sin-offering, bird sin-offering, definitive guilt-offering, conditional guilt-offering, and the communal peace-offerings,

that is, the lambs of Shavuot,

and the log of oil of the leper,

that is, what remains after the portions have been placed on his ear cartilage and thumbs and toes,

and the two loaves, and the showbread, and the remainder of the meal-offerings, and the omer meal-offering.

And these are

the four

that are eaten

in Jerusalem: the firstborn,

that is, an unblemished firstborn,

and the first fruits, and what is raised from

the

thanksgiving-offering,

that is, the breast, the thigh, and the four loaves that were given to the priest,

and

what is raised

from the nazirite’s ram,

that is, the cooked shoulder, one loaf, and one wafer [and “what is raised from the thanksgiving-offering and from the nazirite’s ram” -

are considered one item, because both are raised from sacrifices of lesser sanctity],

and the hides of consecrated animals

of burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings, which are given to the priest.

And these are

the ten

that are

outside Jerusalem,

which are given to the priest in all the cities of Israel:

teruma, tithe-teruma, ḥalla, the first shearing, and the gifts of the priesthood,

that is, the shoulder, cheeks, and maw,

and

five selaים of

redemption of the firstborn, and

a lamb for

redemption of the firstborn donkey, and an ancestral field

that its owner consecrated but did not redeem, and which the Temple treasurer sold; when it leaves the purchaser’s possession at the Jubilee, like any ancestral field, its status is that it is divided among the priests of the watch whose turn coincided with that Jubilee.

And a field devoted to destruction

[when a person said: “This field is herem”], which is given to a priest,

and the stolen property of a convert

whose robber swore falsely to him and confessed after the convert’s death; the principal and the additional fifth are given to the priest.

The Gemara returns to explain Rav Hisda’s statement that “the teaching misled Hiyya bar Rav”:

He,

Hiyya bar Rav,

thought: Since the tanna counted them

—the

three

gifts—

as one

gift, rather than counting them as three gifts among the enumeration of the twenty-four gifts,

they are one.

If one is liable for one of them, he is liable for all of them, and if he is exempt from one, he is exempt from all of them.

That is not so!

The fact that he counted them as one item in the enumeration of the gifts is not because their law is that of one item, for

is it so that

the

portion raised from the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite’s ram, which the tanna counted

as

one

in the enumeration of the gifts,

are one item?!

Certainly they are not one item

! Rather, since they are similar to one another,

he counted them as one, and

the same applies to the gifts:

since they are similar to one another,

he counted them as one,

but they are never considered a single item.

A question was raised before them:

A kohen said to an Israelite butcher, before slaughtering the kohen’s animal:

The head

of the animal

shall be yours,

so that you will acquire it,

and all of it—

the rest of the animal—

shall be mine; what is the law?

Is the Israelite obligated to give the gifts [the foreleg, cheeks, and maw], or not?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Do we

follow

the parts of the animal

that entail the obligation,

namely, the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw,

and

the

obligation is upon the Israelite,

since the cheeks are part of the head, and he is obligated to give the gifts?

Or perhaps we follow the principal

of the

animal, and the principal

of the

animal belongs to the kohen!

Come and hear: When a gentile and a kohen entrust their flocks to an Israelite,

appointing him as their agent to shear them,

he is exempt

from the first shearing.

And likewise,

one who purchases the shearing of a gentile’s flock,

even before it has been shorn from the animal,

the purchaser is exempt

from

the first shearing. And this is a stringency that applies to the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw more than to the first shearing:

one who purchases the gifts from a kohen before slaughter is obligated to give the gifts.

Conclude from this: We follow the one subject to the obligation!

For here the Israelite purchased from the kohen only the gifts, while the principal part of the animal remained the kohen’s, and nevertheless he is obligated to give the gifts.

Conclude from this!

We learned in our Mishna:

And if he said to him

the kohen said to the Israelite, “I am selling you the animal

except for the gifts,” he is exempt

the Israelite

from the gifts.